Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Wilson]

Rhetoric aside, Radar, do you really believe that in this day and age, having a gun is going to protect you against the government? I'm not talking about some airy-fairy theory or the founding fathers' language, just common sense and reality. Do you really believe that having a gun is going to protect you against the government? In this, the real world? Come on, now, don't be ridiculous.

The founding fathers were brilliant beyond belief and crafted a wonderful form of government that has been the model for the great nations of today. But they wrote the Constitution in a time when kings ruled the world, there was no such thing as representative government, and the weapons were muzzle-loaded muskets, flintlocks, cannons, swords, and sabres. It's obvious that they meant the second amendment to protect against the outlawing of armed militias (which were thought to be necessary to protect the US in a time when there wasn't much in the way of a national military). In designing our government, they got so much right, but being human, not everything. The Constitution was drawn up by fallible men, not handed down by a deity. They were mostly fine with slavery, women weren't given the vote, and so on. That was a different time, and they couldn't begin to know what life would be like today, just as we can't envision what life will be like in 200 years. In fact, in their wisdom they knew that the Constitution wasn't perfect and would need to be modified periodically. I guarantee you that they never imagined that a bunch of gun nuts would prevent common sense changes to the law. I also guarantee you that being smart, statesmanlike men, if they were alive today, they'd be for more or less the same sensible gun control laws that I am.

[Radar]

Rhetoric aside, Radar, do you really believe that in this day and age, having a gun is going to protect you against the government? I'm not talking about some airy-fairy theory or the founding fathers' language, just common sense and reality. Do you really believe that having a gun is going to protect you against the government? In this, the real world? Come on, now, don't be ridiculous.

The founding fathers were brilliant beyond belief and crafted a wonderful form of government that has been the model for the great nations of today. But they wrote the Constitution in a time when kings ruled the world, there was no such thing as representative government, and the weapons were muzzle-loaded muskets, flintlocks, cannons, swords, and sabres. It's obvious that they meant the second amendment to protect against the outlawing of armed militias (which were thought to be necessary to protect the US in a time when there wasn't much in the way of a national military). In designing our government, they got so much right, but being human, not everything. The Constitution was drawn up by fallible men, not handed down by a deity. They were mostly fine with slavery, women weren't given the vote, and so on. That was a different time, and they couldn't begin to know what life would be like today, just as we can't envision what life will be like in 200 years. In fact, in their wisdom they knew that the Constitution wasn't perfect and would need to be modified periodically. I guarantee you that they never imagined that a bunch of gun nuts would prevent common sense changes to the law. I also guarantee you that being smart, statesmanlike men, if they were alive today, they'd be for more or less the same sensible gun control laws that I am.

What you really mean by "rhetoric aside" is "don't confuse me with the facts." Like I said, gun control advocates don't give a damn about facts, history, the Constitution or its original intent. Apparently, neither do they give a damn about the reality of the situation.

They don't have the facts or history on their side so they resort to raw emotion, and you just proved that to be true.

[Wilson]

What you really mean by "rhetoric aside" is "don't confuse me with the facts." Like I said, gun control advocates don't give a damn about facts, history, the Constitution or its original intent. Apparently, neither do they give a damn about the reality of the situation.

They don't have the facts or history on their side so they resort to raw emotion, and you just proved that to be true.

No, what I meant by "rhetoric aside" was that it's fun for the people who really do make their political decisions on the basis of raw emotion rather than logic to quote phrases from the NRA playbook that may sound inspiring to the weak-minded but have very little to do with the real world of today.

You didn't answer my question: Do you believe that having a gun is going to protect you against the might of the US government? Let's see how grounded in reality you are.

Interesting that after my brief discussion of the history of how the Constitution came into existence, you accuse me of not giving a damn about facts, history, the Constitution, or its original intent.

[Radar]

What you really mean by "rhetoric aside" is "don't confuse me with the facts." Like I said, gun control advocates don't give a damn about facts, history, the Constitution or its original intent. Apparently, neither do they give a damn about the reality of the situation.

They don't have the facts or history on their side so they resort to raw emotion, and you just proved that to be true.

No, what I meant by "rhetoric aside" was that it's fun for the people who really do make their political decisions on the basis of raw emotion rather than logic to quote phrases from the NRA playbook that may sound inspiring to the weak-minded but have very little to do with the real world of today.

You didn't answer my question: Do you believe that having a gun is going to protect you against the might of the US government? Let's see how grounded in reality you are.

Interesting that after my brief discussion of the history of how the Constitution came into existence, you accuse me of not giving a damn about facts, history, the Constitution, or its original intent.

So, 20/20 is a spokesman for the NRA now? Deal with the facts, man, and stop making senseless accusations. It looks like you are a believer in the "when the debate is lost, accuse and insult" tactic. This is a philosophy forum.

The threat of armed rebellion has done a pretty good job of preventing tyranny-by-force so far. The real danger is the slow encroachment of big government, like cooking a lobster by slowly turning up the heat. Whether Americans will eventually say "enough" is another question.

I stand by what I said about gun control advocates not giving a damn about facts, history, the Constitution or its original intent. You obviously don't and your words prove it. The founding fathers foresaw changes and made provisions for it, but they deliberately made change difficult for a reason -- unless they weren't as brilliant as you say they are. It's so difficult that people who don't like the provision made in Constitution, its original intent, the way it was written or being too difficult to change call it a "living document," which makes law arbitrary and paves the way for the kind of "judicial tyranny" Thomas Jefferson warned against -- and he was right to do so: we see it unfolding in our country now.

[Wilson]

The threat of armed rebellion has done a pretty good job of preventing tyranny-by-force so far. The real danger is the slow encroachment of big government, like cooking a lobster by slowly turning up the heat. Whether Americans will eventually say "enough" is another question.

"The threat of armed rebellion has done a pretty good job of preventing tyranny-by-force so far." Honest to God, that's crazy. THAT's the kind of rhetoric I was talking about - ringing phrases that may stir the heart but have no relation to reality. Tyranny by force? When was there ever an attempt to establish tyranny in this country? (Unless you have a definition of tyranny that includes the slow encroachment of big government - which an armed citizenry hasn't affected one bit.)

Look, I agree that the slow encroachment of big government is a concern. It's the natural tendency of governments of all kinds. But be honest. We Americans are free as can be. Our country has given us the chance to earn a living and live well, and if we have to pay a portion of what we earn to taxes, that's not unreasonable, since it was at least partially the government that for all its faults has set up rules that made our economy so strong. We can buy whatever we can afford, we can start any business we can finance, we can take jobs and quit jobs, we can move anywhere we can afford housing, we can sit on our bums, we can write anything we want, we can elect fools to Congress, we can spend time on the internet, we can do pretty much anything we want to. We're free, man. A few irritations at the government are inevitable, part of life. To think that we live under anything like a tyranny is nonsense.

My honest opinion is that you would have to be paranoid to believe that the US government is heading toward tyranny. That would just not be rational. Of course a lot of Americans aren't very rational at all. And to seriously believe that having guns is going to protect you against governmental tyranny-by-force is nuts.

[GaianDave51]

Radar - Go back in this thread and read my post (164) CAREFULLY. Then don't accuse me again of not understanding or caring about the US Constitution.

You sound like you belong to, or are at least sympathetic to, the militia movement in the US. So let me ask you this - do you think that the militias are well-trained and equipped enough to defeat the US Army and Marines in urban guerrilla warfare situations? Do you think the militias ought to launch attacks against US gov't targets anytime soon?

[Lucylu]

Is it coincidence that the NRA was formed in the same year as the terrorist group the KKK was made illegal? It breeds fear and hatred and a twisted love of power and subjugation. Some people feed off of that, which is just another reason that they should not be allowed access to firearms.

I find it extremely difficult to even listen to someone who believes that the general public ie civilians should be able to buy guns, in the same way that I would find it impossible to listen to someone argue that it is ok to molest a child and that it is somehow good for them.

Given the fact that there is so much aggression, social anxiety and psychological problems present in human nature today, how on earth is it feasible that we should be allowed guns? We have professional, trained militaries to protect us and police forces to keep the peace. We don't need to 'bear arms' as individuals, as if we are still living in primitive times and someone is coming to scalp us at any moment!

(Im probably on some sort of 'watch list' after all the words I just googled!! )

[Radar]

Simply can't reason with emotion-based idealism that doesn't give a whit about facts. Oh well.... the collective gets what the collective deserves.

[Steve3007]

Radar: I'm not american and so have no particular ax to grind in this debate. I see it as something that is particular to US culture and not really applicable in the same way where I live. I simply note with interest that your comment:

Simply can't reason with emotion-based idealism that doesn't give a whit about facts.

quite clearly ignores the perfectly reasonable fact-based points being made by some of your opponents, such as when GaianDave51 refers you back to post #164. I've followed with interest the last few posts on the two threads that are currently dealing with this subject and have been quite surprised by the apparent extremism of your views on this subject. I'm interested to know, when you say this:

If the facts ruled, there would be more guns, not fewer.

How many more guns do you think would be the right quantity to do the job?

[Theophane]

Simply can't reason with emotion-based idealism that doesn't give a whit about facts. Oh well.... the collective gets what the collective deserves.

For what it's worth, Radar, "emotion-based idealism" is what made the US Constitution possible in the first place.

[Subatomic God]

My honest opinion is that you would have to be paranoid to believe that the US government is heading toward tyranny. That would just not be rational. Of course a lot of Americans aren't very rational at all. And to seriously believe that having guns is going to protect you against governmental tyranny-by-force is nuts.

That's why they are trying to excuse gun control, by trying to say "think of the people", when they never, ever, showed any concerns for the common people unless it benefited them - how would controlling guns benefit them? It doesn't; it benefits the government.

Hitler already said that if you want to control a society, take away their firearms. The government right now, is "tyranny with manners". You say one thing bad about the president - you are instantly black-listed, demonized and banished from the social scene.

A. They expect their own people to get jobs.

B. They send the jobs over seas, to out source for cheaper labor.

C. They pay sports, white house, CEO's and congress more than they pay people that keep them in business, like those who work in the factory, or those that fought for our country with their own lives.

D. They do absolutely nothing besides sit around looking for more ways to cheat their puppets.

E. Open your eyes. The cost of living still rises, while they keep raising their debt ceiling because they have no idea what they are doing with any of it. They are bullies in suits and ties on power trips with no sense of regard for humanity or the state of any serious degeneration. They just care about themselves. Which is why they are trying to get the emotional people to take away our privilege over guns, because the founding fathers already ran from a place that already trusted the government once - learn your history. Look at England and China. The people suffer and have no real way to defend themselves without guns. You're encouraging tyranny just by being ignorant of the hidden agendas of the government.

[Lucylu]

Allow me to collect my thoughts..

This is a quote from the National Academy of Science study cited in the video that Radar posted. Unlike the video which states misleadingly that this respected organisation has found no links between gun control and lower gun crime levels, the study actually states that it is not possible to draw accurate conclusions either way, based on the current data.

"This public debate has stimulated the production of a large body of statistical evidence on whether right-to-carry laws reduce or increase crimes against individuals. However, although all of the studies use the same basic conceptual model and data, the empirical findings are contradictory and in the committee’s view highly fragile. Some studies find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, others find that the effects are negligible, and still others find that such laws increase violent crime. The committee concludes that it is not possible to reach any scientifically supported conclusion because of (a) the sensitivity of the empirical results to seemingly minor changes in model specification, (b) a lack of robustness of the results to the inclusion of more recent years of data (during which there were many more law changes than in the earlier period), and (c) the statistical imprecision of the results. The evidence to date does not adequately indicate either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates. Furthermore, this uncertainty is not likely to be resolved with the existing data and methods. If further headway is to be made, in the committee’s judgment, new analytical approaches and data are needed. "

So, we cant really know the exact links between gun ownership and gun crime in the US at the moment. The Government has a frightening lack of information on exactly who owns what guns and the "complex personality, social, and circumstantial factors that intervene between a firearm and its use". What is available is the number of deaths per year due to guns shot wounds. A jounalist's pro gun piece breaks down the figures on deaths due to guns. Out of the 11,000 total per year, after taking out those of suicides and gang crime and accidental deaths, there is an estimated 2,200 deaths per year. (http://usconservatives.about.com/od/cap ... ective.htm)

I found Radar's video pretty biased, emotive and lacking in hard facts, if I may say so. In the video we see 3 cases, all of which were from a pro gun perspective, which the clearly pro gun interviewer then agrees with. There is no balanced view and real discussion of the topic. The three examples were of a man who shows a gun to warn off a gang, an elderly couple who show a gun to burglars and there is passing mention of the case of two students stopping a shooter at the Appalachian school. It is repeated several times that all that was needed is to show a gun, trying to convey again and again that guns make us safer. The examples tap in to our deepest fears; our fear of gangs, of being old and defenseless and for our children's safety.

Where are the interviews with people who have been shot or knew someone who was murdered by a gun? Where are the interviews with at least one of the reported 1000 people per year who knew someone lost due to 'accidental' shootings? Or interviews with even one school child who escaped from one of the mass shootings?

The documentary also fails to mention that the two students who helped apprehend the gunman at the Appalachian school were in fact grown men; a police officer and a deputy sheriff who had the help of a marine. The reckless suggestion that letting students have guns would stop school shootings seems to be purposefully trying to deflate the anxiety over school shootings, without actually making a case that this is feasible.

Radar, I do take your point in some respects. The facts aren't entirely clear, but that is because there is a lack of statistics on the subject and it is so complicated and entwined with social issues and in many cases gang violence. However, my common sense tells me that guns on the streets, in people's homes are not safe. In an ideal world I wish they didn't exist, but to face the reality of the situation..Perhaps getting rid of guns would mean that occasionally someone would be attacked and not be able to defend themselves, but there would then be other innocent people who would be saved by not being shot in other circumstances. Is it just swopping one set of problems for another? Crime will continue, one way or another. I can see the argument that guns don't necessarily create a more violent society, and in some cases prevent crime, however, the school shootings are enough for me to want them banned.

Or is that acceptable collateral damage to you?

At the end of the day, the US has an existing culture of gun use and gun ownership which it is impossible to change overnight. Maybe one day it will naturally phase out, and become unfashionable, like smoking has?

I don't really feel that history is a valid argument for guns, as surely we have to base our society on what is best in our world today? I don't believe we should blindly abide by laws or beliefs from previous years that don't work for us anymore, whether they be from hundreds or thousands of years ago. I don't see that as disrespectful to people of the past- just progress.

Radar, do you think people should be allowed to have semi automatic weapons or more than one weapon each? What do you imagine is going to happen that this sort of weaponry would be needed?

[Wilson]

I notice that Radar refuses to respond to any of the questions asked of him, to wit:

From GaienDave: "You sound like you belong to, or are at least sympathetic to, the militia movement in the US. So let me ask you this - do you think that the militias are well-trained and equipped enough to defeat the US Army and Marines in urban guerrilla warfare situations? Do you think the militias ought to launch attacks against US gov't targets anytime soon?"

From Steve: "How many more guns do you think would be the right quantity to do the job?"

From Lucylu: "Radar, do you think people should be allowed to have semi automatic weapons or more than one weapon each? What do you imagine is going to happen that this sort of weaponry would be needed?"

And a new one, from me: "Do you think there should be background checks at gun shows, to weed out some of the criminals and mentally unstable persons?"

An answer to each of those questions would be appreciated.

[Radar]

Wilson, you've accused (NRA talking points), insulted (weak-minded), avoided dealing with the facts altogether, and now you are insisting that I chase after red herrings. Sorry, but I won't bite. I have better and more important things to do.

[Wilson]

Wilson, you've accused (NRA talking points), insulted (weak-minded), avoided dealing with the facts altogether, and now you are insisting that I chase after red herrings. Sorry, but I won't bite. I have better and more important things to do.

Target practice?